JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
 Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 15:45 |
 
|
| Sutherlands wrote: | | Wouldn't that basically turn it to 2-1-0? Unless the difference was 3-0-3 vs 0-6-0. |
Well, it's 14 games, so it would come up. You may interpret this as an indictment of 3-1-0 in formats based on four-team competitive pools, plus an acknowledgment that having a lot more wins at the same W% (2-1-0) makes a pretty good first tiebreaker. I'd note that 7-3-0, with or without a 2-point margin, fixes the problem of ties being better than half a loss in playoff terms that the NFL's strict W% system runs. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Sutherlands
Joined: Aug 01, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 15:57 |
|
Doesn't the NFL not have ties? Because that fixes them pretty well. |
|
|
Ziggyny
Joined: Mar 20, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 16:02 |
|
Donovan McNabb would like to have a word with you... |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 16:05 |
|
Hahaha! Got it. If two teams are within 2 VP, then add the following in, one at a time, until one team is +3 VP or all three factors have been thrown in.
Division: Head-to-head VP; VP in division games.
Conference: HtH; common games; conference games.
Draft: HtH; division games; common games.
Head to Head would always be decisive except in case of trade or tie: the minimum non-zero swing is 7 points. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 16:10 |
|
| Ziggyny wrote: | | Donovan McNabb would like to have a word with you... |
The Eagles made the playoffs on the strength of that tie, IIRC. The problem is that a team with two ties in the NFL system (a hypothetical, not a likely scenario) gets an infinitesimal mathematical advantage over a team with none, effectively making "most ties" the first tiebreaker. IMO that sucks, or would suck if it ever came up, which it won't in the NFL but would here. 7-3-0 basically makes "fewest ties" the first tiebreaker (3-1-0 goes well beyond that). My proposal here is an effort to make "fewest ties" a deep (or deep-ish) tiebreaker, unless the margin is large. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2014 - 17:07 |
|
We've been through this before. I think draws should not gain in advantage over wins, I think the 7-3 to relate things to touchdowns and field goals is silly and has no real basis in the fluff. The NFL doesn't give a team 7 points for winning a game. If you want to make the scoring system like the NFL you do what NWFL did and make it 2-1-0. Or you add in overtime for all games. That said, I'm not a proponent of adding in overtime due to the increased length of games in general.
I'm not sure why you say 3-1 doesn't work in divisional formats, seemed it worked well enough for 11 seasons before this change. Draws are killers, as they should be, draws are like losing, because you didn't win. Draws shouldn't be a bonus because you didn't lose.
Blowouts are the goal in every game though. You make it sound as though coaches should play for a tighter match for some reason. The favorites should be the favorites, why do we want to throw bones to the underdog? In any case, when the underdog does score a draw it now hurts the favorite LESS. You say it helps the underdog more? The underdog, normally, isn't even competing for the division anyway, they are playing spoiler, and now you just made it hurt less to wind up 1-1 vs. some team you think you are better than. (*cough*JETS*cough*  )
Frankly I don't like the 2-1 scoring in NWFL either. Due to the nature of bloodbowl, where draws are far more frequent, adopting the scoring used in sissy kick makes much more sense. Trying to cram NFL style scoring (at least we're not doing the stupidity of the NHL...) into a system which doesn't play at all like NFL games doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To put this another way, last season I worried about how to beat a team. This season... not so much, just working for a draw is going to be good enough, as the points you drop in the standings simply isn't that bad. So this system seems to have a chance of making coaches even more conservative later in the season. If you're up a win and a draw (10 points vs. 4 points in the old system) you can simply take 2 draws in the final 2 games and be assured of winning the division. In the old system 2 draws and you can still be caught (tie breakers pending).
It doesn't really matter though, I just don't like it. You or someone ran the numbers on the last season and this change to the scoring system didn't change the standings in any meaningful way. Which is a reason NOT to do it in my opinion. Because it didn't gain you anything you claim it should. So it's just some hand waving math about what you think should be given more weight with no actual basis in improving anything, or, indeed, actually changing anything. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2014 - 23:08 |
|
I'm sorry, guys. I'm taking the season off JRPRs. If anyone wants to take on Power Rankings, go ahead. But my brain isn't up to it of late.  I'd rather drop the Power Rankings than drop a league. Wonderfully the timing on this means I don't have to be the guy who puts himself in the top 5.  This is a great job for a second-season coach: looking at you, Bullroarer, Oryx, OTS.
@ Licker, I think the best way to think of 7-3-0 is as an attempt to filter out the perversity of both Euro and American scoring systems. Put another way, it's an acknowledgment of the flaws of pure W% and a rejection of the perversities of pure "sissykick" 3-1-0. Could have been 5-2-0, 9-4-0, 11-5-0… but 7-3-0 does the job nicely and has a cute coincidental commonality with NFL in-game scoring. Please don't confuse the latter for the main reasonng; the main cause is that it fixes the problem of 2-1-0 without going too far like 3-1-0 does. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 00:17 |
|
Sorry to hear you're dropping the power rankings, but I realize how much time these things can take, thanks for all the past work!
We will have to agree to disagree that there was any problem with 3-1-0 in the 1st place then. I didn't see any reason to change, and from the initial convo the actual selling point was the similarity to touchdowns and field goals.
That said, whatever. It's just a scoring system, it doesn't really matter that much, even though I think that big point totals at the end of the season are going to look kind of weird. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:16 |
|
Actually, that's the third-best part. 7x14=98~100. Think of it as a rather parsimonious percentile system. "I have 27 of a possible 35 VP. If I lost out from here I'd be just over .270; if I won out I'd be at 90 VP, a little better than .900." |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
robocoyote
Joined: Oct 19, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:20 |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:30 |
|
Ugh, I'm describing a done deal: it's kind of a percentile system now. Like a class where test 1 of 14 is >7% of your grade, and you get graded either 0, 3, or 7.
But yeah, this avenue has been explored thoroughly. I think the range of opinion probably runs from "harmless/useless tinker" to "fun fix for minor/common problem." (I'd argue that it's less "minor" than "ubiquitous" which puts this fix in the "clever" category, but I'll settle for "fun".) So we can leave it at that.
Back to topic: anybody wanna do power rankings? |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
ryanfitz
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:47 |
|
JR you are making me want to revert my decision back to the old 3-1-0 system.
K.I.S.S. |
|
|
Jeffro
Joined: Jan 22, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:51 |
|
You should pay attention less... like me!  |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:19 |
|
Off that topic, please. No more from me, it's done. Was trying to get off of it, just responding to a new concern that I'd already thought through ('cause I do that).
Like I said, I can't do JRPRs anymore, I can't mentally manage even the simplest database at the moment. I can write, but, alas, I can't keep the teams straight. Anybody want it? |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
OTS
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:30 |
|
I'd love to do it, but I don't have the free time. I'd need to watch every game and make notes etc. my current situation just doesn't warrant that unfortunately. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
